The American Spectator

Melvin| 4.27.09 @ 7:34AM

"Like a dog with a juicy bone, the far left does not want to let go of this issue. Only Mr. Obama can keep it from careering out of control and threatening to deeply divide the country. "
Divide the Country, hell we passed this point a long time ago.

David Mathews| 4.27.09 @ 7:39AM

Justice demands that Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and everyone else who authorized and/or engaged in torture should face trial for their crimes and suffer the just consequences.

Conservatives who support torture demonstrate (a thousand times over) that Christianity is a religion for bloodthirsty warmongers. It is no wonder that Christians have committed genocide and crimes against humanity all across the globe.

Christianity is not a peaceful religion. Christians aren't peace-lovers.

I heard some conservatives excuse torture by making the argument that America incinerated over 100,000 civilians in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden during World War II. How ironic it is for conservatives to justify one crime against humanity by appealing to another.

Christians simply aren't peace. Christianity ranks among the most violent religions to ever inflict itself upon the earth.

How Would Jesus Torture? How Many Civilians Would Jesus Incinerate by Firebombing and Nuclear bombing?

Christians answer: Lots!

Then they pray to God and tell each other that Christianity is a religion of peace and that it is those evil Muslims who kill civilians and engage in torture.

Lu| 4.27.09 @ 7:41AM

Every Democrat should be forced to testify and sent to prison if they are caught lying. That might be one of the hardest thing for the Dems. to do, tell the truth for once. One bounus would be watching Strench Pelosi squirm. I would pay to see that.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.27.09 @ 8:11AM

Although members of the U.S. Congress and the President are sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect the United States, they have devolved politics into a gotcha game full of lies and simpleton strategies.

Here are 4 good reads on the subject.

Some news clips from 2007 appear to contradict Pelosi's version that she was unaware.

It's clear the Democratic leadership knew precisely what was happening.

Obama doesn't appear to care about gambling with public safety. In that sense, he's a fool and will reap what he's sown.

Link 4 spells out the whole game plan of deception by the simple minded but cunning liar, President Obama.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=39012

Instead, a full-blown battle has opened between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and her GOP counterpart, Ohio's John Boehner about how much top Congressional leaders knew about water boarding in 2002. It is being fueled in part by a timeline released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by another California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein.
Boehner released news reports from 2007 that seemed to contradict Pelosi, and Pelosi's office fired back with their own. Boehner said Congressional leaders "received an awful lot of information" about interrogations, and that "not a word was raised at the time, not one word. And I think you're going to hear more and more about the bigger picture here, that … the war on terror after 9/11 was done in a bipartisan basis on lots of fronts."

Pelosi spent much of her press conference today addressing questions about what she knew.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044188941045415.html

Yet last week Mr. Obama overruled the advice of his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and four prior CIA directors by releasing the details of the enhanced interrogation program. Former CIA director Michael Hayden has stated clearly that declassifying the memos will make it more difficult for the CIA to defend the nation.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Last week, Mr. Obama argued that those who implemented this program should not be prosecuted — even though the release of the memos still places many individuals at other forms of unfair legal risk. It appeared that Mr. Obama understood it would be unfair to prosecute U.S. government employees for carrying out a policy that had been fully vetted and approved by the executive branch and Congress. The president explained this decision with these gracious words: "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." I agreed.

Unfortunately, on April 21, Mr. Obama backtracked and opened the door to possible prosecution of Justice Department attorneys who provided legal advice with respect to the enhanced interrogations program. The president also signaled that he may support some kind of independent inquiry into the program. It seems that he has capitulated to left-wing groups and some in Congress who are demanding show trials over this program.

Members of Congress calling for an investigation of the enhanced interrogation program should remember that such an investigation can't be a selective review of information, or solely focus on the lawyers who wrote the memos, or the low-level employees who carried out this program. I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.

http://politicalchase.com/2007/12/09/congressional-leaders-should-explain-torture-policy-decisions/

An article in the Washington Post today provides previously undisclosed information about when and who in Congress was briefed on the administration’s torture policies, and raises several questions congressional leaders need to address, especially Democratic leaders.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

A key issue is why lawmakers in oversight roles, “with one known exception,” did not renounce the torture techniques until two years and “about 30 private briefings” later. What could possibly justify lawmakers’ attitudes described as: “We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.” Democrats with oversight responsibility during that period were Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham and Jay Rockefeller; however, “Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics.”

An excuse Jane Harman provides is especially troubling. According to Harman:

When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath — one of secrecy. I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obama-hides-the-whole-story-43588427.html

Set aside for now the troubling changes in the Obama administration’s position on whether former Bush officials should be prosecuted for suggesting tough interrogation tactics against terrorists. Set aside the manifest unfairness of prosecuting lawyers merely for doing their job of giving legal advice. Set aside the raft of other reasonable objections to the proposed prosecutions, including a justifiable aversion to witch-hunts.

Instead, consider how flagrantly President Barack Obama violated his repeated promises that he would run a transparent and honorable administration. His administration’s selective and highly prejudicial release of only partial information about CIA interrogations clearly was designed to gin up outrage against former Bush officials. The release of the information was a pure political hit job masquerading as an act of openness.

The administration ignored near-uniform pleadings by respected intelligence professionals to keep the interrogation descriptions classified, yet refused to declassify the evidence that the interrogations saved countless American lives. Obama highlighted the alleged sins while withholding (often directly redacting) the context, the justifications, and the practical benefits gained. Then his administration went even farther. Not only did it refuse to declassify the exculpatory intelligence, but also it selectively and misleadingly edited a memo by its own national intelligence director about the program.

As reported by the New York Times’ Peter Baker, intelligence director Dennis Blair wrote a memo that included these lines: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.” Baker then reported: “Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

That last deleted line read as follows: “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time….”

Without Baker’s reporting, those highly important judgments by Obama’s own appointee would have been buried from public view, thus stacking the deck against those whom Blair would absolve. Such dishonesty from a White House borders on the Nixonian – and violates every reasonable American’s innate sense of justice.

reads1| 4.27.09 @ 8:13AM

David, (or IT!) is a paid Staff Writer for Beelzebub Daily, based in Teheran.

Paul Doolittle| 4.27.09 @ 8:26AM

Dear Dave Matthews,

Let see how brave you really are. Dare to use your real name and make the same bigoted comments about Muslims. Why not go for broke and take the anti-Christian Darwin thingee off your car and replace it with a bumper sticker with Muhammed's face on it?

Easy to pick on a religion which requires its members to turn the other cheek isn't it?

Bob Sledd| 4.27.09 @ 8:31AM

We'll stop waterboarding when they stop Beheading..

WilliamInWien| 4.27.09 @ 8:32AM

The UN has not been able to define "terrorism" for decades. "Genocide" is another term that causes problems for political leaders, depending on which side of the issue you may stand. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "torture". Right wing extremist or veteran? 9/11 victim or "little Eichmanns"? Somehow I have a problem not "waterboarding" for intelligence those who videotape beheadings, utilize people to blow up other people and seek to kill as many humans as possible based on their interpretation of the term "infidel". If there is to be a commission, keep the politicians at a distance and insure the inclusion of those victimized by 9/11.

WilliamInWien| 4.27.09 @ 8:32AM

The UN has not been able to define "terrorism" for decades. "Genocide" is another term that causes problems for political leaders, depending on which side of the issue you may stand. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" or "torture". Right wing extremist or veteran? 9/11 victim or "little Eichmanns"? Somehow I have a problem not "waterboarding" for intelligence those who videotape beheadings, utilize people to blow up other people and seek to kill as many humans as possible based on their interpretation of the term "infidel". If there is to be a commission, keep the politicians at a distance and insure the inclusion of those victimized by 9/11.

3Case| 4.27.09 @ 8:35AM

Waterboarding is not torture. If it is, then we must ban competitive swimming at all levels.

P. Aaron| 4.27.09 @ 8:44AM

All this 'releasing' of memos and the big 'O' considering investigations is doing what the left wants to happen: dare conservatives to invoke their polices in all things conservative; be it economic, national security or America's foreign policies. The left is out to if not make illegal, at least sow enough confusion and doubt to slow, if not strangle the right from doing what they belive is in the nation's interest.

It's all Dems ever do these days. They hate America that much.

Bill| 4.27.09 @ 9:46AM

Well I guess Republicans will just have to patiently wait until they get the majority in the House and Senate again.

Then we can posthumously prosecute FDR and member of his administration for the Japanese internment camps...

...and Truman for dropping of a nuclear warhead on Japan...

...and all those Democrats who imposed Jim Crow laws in the South.

We could have a hey day with this.

Bud Hammons| 4.27.09 @ 10:22AM

It is exceedingly strange for David Matthews to concurrently proclaim that "Justice demands .." and demanding that civilization and its associated technology be summarily abandoned because it is unsustainable in his estimation. Perhaps he should consider the possibility that justice is unsustainable in the absence of the means to document and propagate it to others.

Dustoff| 4.27.09 @ 10:37AM

Didn't they say Prez Johnson faked Tonkin to start the war in NAM.

To JAIL, all of them.

Marc Jeric| 4.27.09 @ 11:30AM

There is that far-left pest DW infesting these pages again. Torture is pulling nails, cutting balls, and eventually killing those beasts of prey, Islamo-fascist terrorists who cut heads and throw bombs into markets full of women and children; they should be treated as vermin or deadly virus, not treated as valued guests in that tropical paradise of Guantanamo. Those animals enjoy better food and health care than the vast majority of us Americans. Just think of those secretaries murdered on 9/11 with their now motherless children. But then to a communist like DW these thoughts are foreign - he has hated those losses by the functional morons Gore and Kerry for 8 long years and is happy now with our Community Organizer-in-Chief Abu Hussein from Kenya. By the way that word "Soviet" in the name of the defunct USSR (thank you, Mr. Reagan) means "community organization".

Michael Tomlinson| 4.27.09 @ 11:46AM

If BO chooses to engage in Nazi & Soviet style show trials I would suggest Republicans go nuclear as suggested by moderate Republican Rep. Peter King (R-NY). Once Democrats throw out the Constitution and legal precedents why shouldn't the right have some "fun" too?

Bill Clinton, abettor of genocide in Rwanda needs to be tried for crimes against humanity and mass murder. He should also face criminal charges for the pardons he gave for what were undoubtedly bribes. Why stop there? He should face the "wall" for being the creator of the doctrine of regime change in Iraq. I'm sure if we look hard enough will find some precedent in Scottish law to execute him for his crimes.

Joe Biden could be tried for stealing the intellectual property of British Labor party politicians and fraudulently masquerading as an original thinker.

The criminal dealings of Hillary (that a Democrat special prosecutor chose not to pursue) should be brushed off and brought to trial along with her criminal dealings in the commodities.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller need to be incarcerated in GITMO for their endorsement of "torture" and illegally leaking classified documents . I'd even suggest we send them to Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan so they could face the justice of Muslim zealots for their crimes. What better way for BO to appease Islamic extremists and show himself open to working with them to find a "just peace?"

In fact, since BO wants to strip defendants of their Constitutional protections and flush legal precedents down the toilet why not prosecute international criminal George Soros for insider trading on the French stockmarket? Trying him for crimes in France would show the US is open minded when it comes to embracing foreign laws. Wouldn't that make Europeans happy and BO even more popular among the unwashed masses of Europe?

It would be wise for the GOP to begin collecting data on BO himself so he can be tried for his illegal land deals, election fraud as ACORN's attorney, bankrupting GM and Chrysler, bank fraud, murdering the ad hoc Somalian Coast Guardsmen, etc.. Since he's patently guilty of the latter crime of premeditated "murderer" life in prison may be to good for him.

While we're at it I'm with Bill -- Republicans should go back in history and arrest virulent racists like Fritz Hollings and try him and the Democrat party for their centuries of crimes against African-Americans. FDR, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter are all potential candidates for show trials based on their lack of actions to stop genocide, using WMD in pursuit of a war of aggression, illegally overthrowing a foreign government, manufacturing a war and just being stupid and annoying.

Think of all the fun thanks to BO and Democrats arbitrarily changing the laws and Constitution. Once Americans realize how much fun it is being a Third World nation I'm sure they'll also discover the joys of raping and murdering their political foes too. Chaos is such a beautiful thing -- Happy Days are here again thanks to BO and MoveOn.org.

sinanju| 4.27.09 @ 11:47AM

Let us not kid ourselves here. Obama did not stumble into this. He knows, or thinks he knows, exactly what he's doing. He lusts to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and as many other former administration officials in the dock. He is ignoring the advice of his own, more experienced, consiglieres because he is convinced he can set the process in motion without taking any responsibility for it. He seems convinced that nothing will stick to him and that nothing that transpires will get in the way of his own agenda or come back to haunt him. We'll see about that.

Right now, it all hinges on whether or not Pelosi and Co. up on the Hill think THEY can unleash the beast without it ever turning on them. Previous history indicates otherwise, especially if the investigations, hearings, testimonies, tribunals, prosecutions, etc. last into another administration or if Congress changes hands next year. Nevermind what might happen if the international justice jet set gets involved. Current indications are that they are worried. Judging from the headlines, the all-important MSM does not seem to be inclined to dutifully whitewash Pelosi's role in the authorization.

L. Ross| 4.27.09 @ 1:42PM

Marc Jeric:

I totally agree with you about torture. Or, how about this definition of torture. "If you need to see a doctor within 24 hours of an interrogation, you have been tortured." No cuts, no bruises, no torture.

John II| 4.27.09 @ 1:51PM

It may not be chic to say so, but we could just cut to the heart of all this criminalizing of political opposition by recalling the Constitutional definition of treason. The few people left in Congress who don't have the same problem themselves should consider it their duty to investigate whether any of the Prophet Obama's antics thus far constitute deliberate instances of treason. There's no law in America against hating America, but there is a law against extending aid and comfort to America's enemies.

Gill O'Teen| 4.27.09 @ 3:20PM

When Pandora opened her box, she Changed the world forever. After releasing all the evils now plaguing the world, all of which had been stored inside by a vile creature named Bush, all that remained within her case was Hope. Surely, obumah, the greatest legal mind and classical scholar known to man, understands that his fellow members of the bar, after cash, love nothing more than ‘precedent’. Steps he has taken these past two weeks establish precedent by which a previous administration can be prosecuted by its successor. Does he really want to open that box? Really?

Tom Paine| 4.27.09 @ 8:58PM

John II --

Usually your comments are smarter than that. Obama has no committed treason -- how exactly? You might want to take a breath and reevaluate anytime you find yourself sounding like an Oklahoma City bomber.

Torture is illegal. The laws of the United States outlaw it (hence the term "illegal").

Let me just inject some sanity into this discussion by pointing out that it is three government lawyers who may face some kind of action.

Those lawyers would be liable if they were found to have given President Bush bad legal advice, essentially. The president deserved GOOD legal advice, even if it conflicted with what Dick Cheney and his friends desired.

I think most of you have this wrong ways around. If John Yoo, say, is disbarred, it will be because as a lawyer he acted in bad faith and deliberately gave unsound legal advice to the president of the United States in a time when he needed good advice.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.27.09 @ 10:01PM

Isn't it amazing that a person who uses the pseudonym Tom Paine is so intent on defending the actions of BO's administration that run counter to US legal, Constitutional and political precedents? Of course, in an administration and party populated from the top down by unethical politicians and lobbyists it is not surprising that the law and Constitution are unimportant.

What will stop a future administration from arresting Obama and his cabinet of tax cheats for their part in the ongoing banking and business melt down? For that matter what will stop Obama from arresting those who disagree with him on policies issues since it is clear he has no regard for the law or Constitution?

Why shouldn't Bill Clinton be tried for establishing the policy of regime change in Iraq that led to the interrogation techniques in question? For that matter shouldn't we seriously consider trying him for establishing the policy of rendition and using aggressive interrogation techniques during his administration? Clinton laid the foundations for the Bush administration's actions that Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller and sundry other Democrats signed off on.

What if by his show trials and neutering the intelligence community Obama's actions lead to a major terrorist attack on the US -- should he be tried as an accessory to the murders that will be committed? Should Jamie Gorelick be tried as an accessory to 9/11? Should we consider arresting Janet Reno for the slaughter of innocents at Waco? In the case of the Clinton administration's policy failures (Waco and 9/11) innocent Americans and not ruthless Muslim terrorists were the victims who died.

This is not an issue of legal or illegal interrogation techniques, but about criminalizing political differences and/or dissent. A technique favored by tinpot despots and totalitarian dictators not civilized or thoughtful statesmen. Where and when will the madness stop? How far must BO go in destroying the US legal system and subverting the Constitution before his minions realize they too will suffer as freedom is lost in this country? Will they only be happy with a 21st century reign of terror?

Thoughtful people may disagree on interrogation techniques. BO and company even have the right to publicly state they won't use aggressive interrogation techniques (have they actually stopped them or just talked about it?), but once they start down the slippery path of political persecution they need to be ready to accept that one day soon, if we're lucky, they'll be the one's in the dock for their actions of coddling terrorists, appeasing dictators and ignoring the Constitution and US laws.

Tom Paine| 4.27.09 @ 10:47PM

Michael --

Some of your points might be interesting if your premise was at all based on fact.

You're hysterically exaggerating what even the most ardent supporters of legal action are asking for. And at best Obama has been ambivalent on the question. Whatever his personal desires, Obama did the right thing by leaving it to the Justice Department, where the issue belongs. If President Bush's lawyers gave bad advice, there are professional sanctions that would almost certainly take the place of any criminal charges.

Coddling terrorists!

What a jackass.

Curtis Rasmussen| 4.28.09 @ 12:08AM

Constitutional definition of treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Publishing our interrogation techniques provides aid and comfort to our enemies by rendering them inert. This fits the definition of treason to me.

Making the hard decisions that may be viewed as inappropiate later will also shackle the decision making process from this point forward for all presidents, Republican or Democrat. You can't slam the lid once the box has been opened.

Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:01PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie

Supra Shoes| 11.18.09 @ 1:35AM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes